Re: Stereotypes and reputations

From: Cornelius Hunter <>
Date: Thu Aug 04 2005 - 20:19:09 EDT


> Often, oddities are interesting, providing some means of testing and
> refining ideas. Yet at the same time, there is always the question of
> whether we have the ability to determine whether a data point is a
> "theory-smashing" result or something else. Biology and biological history
> are extremely complicated and almost impossible to model. It is hard to
> distinguish signal from noise and the level of understanding may be
> insufficient to resolve many issues. We can't tell if the apparent, "3
> sigma" outliers really do knock out evolution.

Yes, this adds to my point about naive falsificationism.

> Despite the issues of noise and uncertainty, the 'Linnean pattern' you
> mention is terribly clear and has been for at least a couple centuries.

I think it is more complicated. There definitely is a pattern; how clear it
is I'm less sure.

> It is also very clear that species have changed over time and that the
> nested hierarchies generally track with at multiple levels (e.g. time,
> morphology, biochemistry & molecular sequences, as I mentioned
> previously).

Yes, and the celestial bodies generally track geocentrism.

> When I talk about the evidence allowing one to deduce common descent, I'm
> not talking about making a wild stab at a explanation. I'm saying that the
> evidence actually favors one explanation over others. For example,
> multiple events of unrelated special creation (e.g. Biblical creation by
> kinds) ... are pretty much out of the picture.

Why is that true?

> Suffice to say that descent with modification remains the main, consensus
> theory in science for the history of life on the planet

Yes, this is no doubt true.

> Regards,
> Tim I
Received on Thu Aug 4 20:22:06 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Aug 04 2005 - 20:22:06 EDT